[B5JMS] Atheists: America's most distrusted minority

[b5jms at mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:40:13 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 29

>>On Mon, 1 May 2006 22:18:15 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
(in article <3gy5g.80851$dW3.45835 at newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):

> 
> 
> More to the point, how do you know that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann
> Coulter are people that hate?  Did you personally read their books, blogs or
> audit their radio or TV shows?  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you are
> basing your opinion on at best a double-handful of quotes that you got from
> one or more Leftist sources.  You have to realize that those quotes are
> there to make exactly that point and have been culled out of both a larger
> body of public work and aren't necessarily a representative sample.  Worse,
> it's very easy to take something out of context to make someone sound
> different or worse than what they actually meant.  (Bringing this back to B5
> for a second, RE: "The Illusion of Truth")
> 
> Example: leftist Ward Churchill was raked over the coals last year for
> supposedly referring to the victims of 9/11 as "little Hitlers".  It's
> possible for that to be some form of out-of-context quote or worse.  One
> would need to read the paragraph it came from to be reasonably sure of
> Churchill's meaning. <<

Speaking of making sure you're familiar with your source material and not 
just excerpted sound bytes, Churchill's quote never mentioned Hitler: he 
called the people in the towers "little Eichmanns."

Amy



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Vorlonagent" <jt at otfresno.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:16:24 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 63


"Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C07CDDD503D8D312F0407530 at news.verizon.net...
>>>On Mon, 1 May 2006 22:18:15 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
> (in article <3gy5g.80851$dW3.45835 at newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>>
>>
>> More to the point, how do you know that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and 
>> Ann
>> Coulter are people that hate?  Did you personally read their books, blogs 
>> or
>> audit their radio or TV shows?  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you 
>> are
>> basing your opinion on at best a double-handful of quotes that you got 
>> from
>> one or more Leftist sources.  You have to realize that those quotes are
>> there to make exactly that point and have been culled out of both a 
>> larger
>> body of public work and aren't necessarily a representative sample. 
>> Worse,
>> it's very easy to take something out of context to make someone sound
>> different or worse than what they actually meant.  (Bringing this back to 
>> B5
>> for a second, RE: "The Illusion of Truth")
>>
>> Example: leftist Ward Churchill was raked over the coals last year for
>> supposedly referring to the victims of 9/11 as "little Hitlers".  It's
>> possible for that to be some form of out-of-context quote or worse.  One
>> would need to read the paragraph it came from to be reasonably sure of
>> Churchill's meaning. <<
>
> Speaking of making sure you're familiar with your source material and not
> just excerpted sound bytes, Churchill's quote never mentioned Hitler: he
> called the people in the towers "little Eichmanns."

Mea culpa.

Still, the nazi equivalence is the nasty part of that quote.  Did Churchill 
really say that?  Is there any wider context to that quote that changes the 
meaning from the obvious?

If there isn't, it's a great example of hate-speech, not to mention 
disrespect to the dead.

-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 19:26:56 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 77

>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:16:24 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
(in article <dAq7g.67398$_S7.49239 at newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):

> 
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C07CDDD503D8D312F0407530 at news.verizon.net...
>>>> On Mon, 1 May 2006 22:18:15 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
>> (in article <3gy5g.80851$dW3.45835 at newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> More to the point, how do you know that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and 
>>> Ann
>>> Coulter are people that hate?  Did you personally read their books, blogs 
>>> or
>>> audit their radio or TV shows?  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you 
>>> are
>>> basing your opinion on at best a double-handful of quotes that you got 
>>> from
>>> one or more Leftist sources.  You have to realize that those quotes are
>>> there to make exactly that point and have been culled out of both a 
>>> larger
>>> body of public work and aren't necessarily a representative sample. 
>>> Worse,
>>> it's very easy to take something out of context to make someone sound
>>> different or worse than what they actually meant.  (Bringing this back to 
>>> B5
>>> for a second, RE: "The Illusion of Truth")
>>> 
>>> Example: leftist Ward Churchill was raked over the coals last year for
>>> supposedly referring to the victims of 9/11 as "little Hitlers".  It's
>>> possible for that to be some form of out-of-context quote or worse.  One
>>> would need to read the paragraph it came from to be reasonably sure of
>>> Churchill's meaning. <<
>> 
>> Speaking of making sure you're familiar with your source material and not
>> just excerpted sound bytes, Churchill's quote never mentioned Hitler: he
>> called the people in the towers "little Eichmanns."
> 
> Mea culpa.
> 
> Still, the nazi equivalence is the nasty part of that quote.  Did Churchill 
> really say that?  Is there any wider context to that quote that changes the 
> meaning from the obvious?
> 
> If there isn't, it's a great example of hate-speech, not to mention 
> disrespect to the dead. <<

Here's the excerpt in context (and if you want to find it, Google "ward 
churchill," essay, and eichmann):

>>They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on 
September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military 
targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, 
really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of 
a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the 
very heart of America's global financial empire ? the "mighty engine of 
profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been 
enslaved ? and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to 
"ignorance" ? a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" ? counts as less 
than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that 
any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they 
were involved in ? and in many cases excelling at ? it was because of their 
absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy 
braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging 
power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently 
out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh 
of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way 
of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little 
Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be 
interested in hearing about it. <<

Amy



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Vorlonagent" <jt at otfresno.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:18:08 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 154


"Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C084F1F80530099BF0407530 at news.verizon.net...
>>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 10:16:24 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
> (in article <dAq7g.67398$_S7.49239 at newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>>
>> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C07CDDD503D8D312F0407530 at news.verizon.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 1 May 2006 22:18:15 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
>>> (in article <3gy5g.80851$dW3.45835 at newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More to the point, how do you know that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly 
>>>> and
>>>> Ann
>>>> Coulter are people that hate?  Did you personally read their books, 
>>>> blogs
>>>> or
>>>> audit their radio or TV shows?  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you
>>>> are
>>>> basing your opinion on at best a double-handful of quotes that you got
>>>> from
>>>> one or more Leftist sources.  You have to realize that those quotes are
>>>> there to make exactly that point and have been culled out of both a
>>>> larger
>>>> body of public work and aren't necessarily a representative sample.
>>>> Worse,
>>>> it's very easy to take something out of context to make someone sound
>>>> different or worse than what they actually meant.  (Bringing this back 
>>>> to
>>>> B5
>>>> for a second, RE: "The Illusion of Truth")
>>>>
>>>> Example: leftist Ward Churchill was raked over the coals last year for
>>>> supposedly referring to the victims of 9/11 as "little Hitlers".  It's
>>>> possible for that to be some form of out-of-context quote or worse. 
>>>> One
>>>> would need to read the paragraph it came from to be reasonably sure of
>>>> Churchill's meaning. <<
>>>
>>> Speaking of making sure you're familiar with your source material and 
>>> not
>>> just excerpted sound bytes, Churchill's quote never mentioned Hitler: he
>>> called the people in the towers "little Eichmanns."
>>
>> Mea culpa.
>>
>> Still, the nazi equivalence is the nasty part of that quote.  Did 
>> Churchill
>> really say that?  Is there any wider context to that quote that changes 
>> the
>> meaning from the obvious?
>>
>> If there isn't, it's a great example of hate-speech, not to mention
>> disrespect to the dead. <<
>
> Here's the excerpt in context (and if you want to find it, Google "ward
> churchill," essay, and eichmann):

Thank you.


>>>They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."
>
> There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed 
> on
> September 11 fill that bill.

The most charitable I can be is tell myself that Churchill is mistakenly 
assuming that only unformed military personnel work in the Pentagon.


> The building and those inside comprised military
> targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . 
> Well,
> really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians 
> of
> a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at 
> the
> very heart of America's global financial empire ? the "mighty engine of
> profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been
> enslaved ? and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to
> "ignorance" ? a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" ? counts as 
> less
> than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent 
> that
> any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what 
> they
> were involved in ? and in many cases excelling at ? it was because of 
> their
> absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy
> braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, 
> arranging
> power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, 
> conveniently
> out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting 
> flesh
> of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other 
> way
> of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little
> Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really 
> be
> interested in hearing about it. <<

My verdict: Hate speech.  Phrases such as "braying, incessantly and 
self-importantly, into their cell phones" identify this as hate speech, no 
matter whether his objections to US economic activity are well or badly 
taken.  He is projecting his own prejudices against businessmen and women 
onto the 9/11 victims, settimg them up as strawmen to knock down as "little 
Eichmanns."

Churchill's words express a pronounced prejudiced against a class of people, 
namely US businesspeople.  He is heaping any number of real and perceived 
sins onto the people who worked at the World Trade Center and claiming that 
these people ***deserved*** the death penalty for those real or perceived 
crimes.

Churchill is saying that real or perceived crimes inflicted by US business 
interests overseas somehow justified the Al-Queda attacks when those attacks 
came from an entirely different motivation.  The US is not under jihad 
because of what US companies are doing in the Mideast.  We are under jihad 
because we support Isreal and because we are exporting a ***liberal*** 
culture that offends some religious extremists.  People see women unveiled 
(to say the least) and in positions of authority, taking charge of their own 
lives.  That bothers a Wahabbist cleric more than whatever business 
Haliburton is doing in his land.

And for uttering these words, Churchill became a popular speaker at Leftist 
venues, gaining a larger vanue for his hate-speech.

Tell me, did Air America distance themselves from Churchill, condemn him, 
apologize for him or embrace him?


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Amy Guskin <aisling at fjordstone.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 00:05:40 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 23

>>On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:18:08 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
(in article <Hrb8g.24557$4L1.16660 at newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>):

> 
> 
> And for uttering these words, Churchill became a popular speaker at Leftist 
> venues, gaining a larger vanue for his hate-speech. 
> 
> Tell me, did Air America distance themselves from Churchill, condemn him, 
> apologize for him or embrace him? <<

Er, sorry, but I don't know _anyone_ who considers themselves left of center 
who had anything positive to say about Churchill's essay.

As for Air America's position, I don't recall any specifics about that - I 
had no special interest in that news item over any others that would cause me 
to remember exactly what they were saying - but I assure you that if they 
were out there drumming up support for Churchill, I'd certainly remember 
that.

Amy



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Vorlonagent" <jt at otfresno.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 08:18:35 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 69


"Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C087A14C0582652FF0407530 at news.verizon.net...
>>>On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:18:08 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
> (in article <Hrb8g.24557$4L1.16660 at newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>>
>>
>> And for uttering these words, Churchill became a popular speaker at 
>> Leftist
>> venues, gaining a larger vanue for his hate-speech.
>>
>> Tell me, did Air America distance themselves from Churchill, condemn him,
>> apologize for him or embrace him? <<
>
> Er, sorry, but I don't know _anyone_ who considers themselves left of 
> center
> who had anything positive to say about Churchill's essay.

I'm glad to hear it.


> As for Air America's position, I don't recall any specifics about that - I
> had no special interest in that news item over any others that would cause 
> me
> to remember exactly what they were saying - but I assure you that if they
> were out there drumming up support for Churchill, I'd certainly remember
> that.

Even at my most cynical, I wouldn't expect out-and-out support of his 
comments.  Few people would be that impolitic.  Churchill can afford to be 
because he's tenured (and fast-tracked to tenure IIRC).  From AAR, I would 
expect the possibility of passive aid which retained deniability of his 
words.  Examples would be some dissembling in the form of a weak rebuke to 
his essay or taking air time to point out Churchill's obvious free speech 
rights, object to charges that he plagiarized a painting or lied about his 
American Indian heritage to get his professorship or counterattacking 
Churchill's critics.

>From universities that invited Churchill to speak, I would expect the 
standard boilerplate defense about the desirability of exposing students to 
different points of view, never mind the criticisms of US business that 
underlie Churchill's comments are standard-issue Leftist stuff and there are 
many people better qualified than Churchill to make them in a sunstantiated 
fashion.  Personally, I see no greater good in exposing students to 
hate-speech, which would be one's primary reason for booking Ward Churchill 
specifically, yet he had a full dance card.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones







=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_diver at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:57:35 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 80


"Vorlonagent" <jt at otfresno.com> wrote in message
news:kbo9g.76193$H71.28541 at newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Amy Guskin" <aisling at fjordstone.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C087A14C0582652FF0407530 at news.verizon.net...
> >>>On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:18:08 -0400, Vorlonagent wrote
> > (in article <Hrb8g.24557$4L1.16660 at newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>):
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> And for uttering these words, Churchill became a popular speaker at
> >> Leftist
> >> venues, gaining a larger vanue for his hate-speech.
> >>
> >> Tell me, did Air America distance themselves from Churchill, condemn
him,
> >> apologize for him or embrace him? <<
> >
> > Er, sorry, but I don't know _anyone_ who considers themselves left of
> > center
> > who had anything positive to say about Churchill's essay.
>
> I'm glad to hear it.
>
>
> > As for Air America's position, I don't recall any specifics about that -
I
> > had no special interest in that news item over any others that would
cause
> > me
> > to remember exactly what they were saying - but I assure you that if
they
> > were out there drumming up support for Churchill, I'd certainly remember
> > that.
>
> Even at my most cynical, I wouldn't expect out-and-out support of his
> comments.  Few people would be that impolitic.  Churchill can afford to be
> because he's tenured (and fast-tracked to tenure IIRC).  From AAR, I would
> expect the possibility of passive aid which retained deniability of his
> words.  Examples would be some dissembling in the form of a weak rebuke to
> his essay or taking air time to point out Churchill's obvious free speech
> rights, object to charges that he plagiarized a painting or lied about his
> American Indian heritage to get his professorship or counterattacking
> Churchill's critics.


Well, here's one:
    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0214-20.htm

>
> >From universities that invited Churchill to speak, I would expect the
> standard boilerplate defense about the desirability of exposing students
to
> different points of view, never mind the criticisms of US business that
> underlie Churchill's comments are standard-issue Leftist stuff and there
are
> many people better qualified than Churchill to make them in a
sunstantiated
> fashion.  Personally, I see no greater good in exposing students to
> hate-speech, which would be one's primary reason for booking Ward
Churchill
> specifically, yet he had a full dance card.
>

Unless, of course, the person would be "divisive" (see the uproar over Condi
Rice speaking and getting an honorary doctorate)

>
> -- 
> John Trauger,
> Vorlonagent
>
>
<snip>

Dennis




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Vorlonagent" <jt at otfresno.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:26:32 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 78


"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_dir_diver at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:2ae4d$44676b9d$18d64cf6$2732 at KNOLOGY.NET...

>> Even at my most cynical, I wouldn't expect out-and-out support of his
>> comments.  Few people would be that impolitic.  Churchill can afford to 
>> be
>> because he's tenured (and fast-tracked to tenure IIRC).  From AAR, I 
>> would
>> expect the possibility of passive aid which retained deniability of his
>> words.  Examples would be some dissembling in the form of a weak rebuke 
>> to
>> his essay or taking air time to point out Churchill's obvious free speech
>> rights, object to charges that he plagiarized a painting or lied about 
>> his
>> American Indian heritage to get his professorship or counterattacking
>> Churchill's critics.
>
>
> Well, here's one:
>    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0214-20.htm

There are always a few yahoos who believe Churchill's crap and are stupid 
enough or lurk far enough into the margins to have little to restrain them. 
It's those who believe the same as Churchill but have enough wit to keep it 
to themselves, hence my thoughts on universities that asked Churchill to 
speak.  If I take cover behind the bulwork of "fostering diversity", I can 
ask someone to come speak (Churchill) who can say things I want said but 
would get me hung from the higetst yardarm if I so much as eeped them.


>> >From universities that invited Churchill to speak, I would expect the
>> standard boilerplate defense about the desirability of exposing students
> to
>> different points of view, never mind the criticisms of US business that
>> underlie Churchill's comments are standard-issue Leftist stuff and there
> are
>> many people better qualified than Churchill to make them in a
> sunstantiated
>> fashion.  Personally, I see no greater good in exposing students to
>> hate-speech, which would be one's primary reason for booking Ward
> Churchill
>> specifically, yet he had a full dance card.
>>
>
> Unless, of course, the person would be "divisive" (see the uproar over 
> Condi
> Rice speaking and getting an honorary doctorate)

I find it more useful to make an approximate apples-to-apples comparison. 
Let's compare the unviersity-speaking-engagement experience of Ward 
Churchill and, say, Ann Coulter.  Both are people whose viewpoints are 
extreme and considered objectionable by their opponents.   Churchill gets 
invited, there are some protests, Churchill speaks uncontested, collects his 
fee, goes home.  Ann Coulter gets invited, there is a huge hue and cry. 
Maybe her appearance is cancelled, maybe it isn't.  Coulter's lecture is 
also shouted down by protesting students.  Coulter may still get her fee and 
does go home but nobody gets to hear much of what she was going to say.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Raven Woman" <HrafnWif at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:06:18 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 31

 Personally, I see no greater good in exposing students to
> >> hate-speech, which would be one's primary reason for booking Ward
> > Churchill
> >> specifically, yet he had a full dance card.

The thing about hate speech & the "little Eichmann" reference . . .

We're sort of taking it as if Churchill was invoking Hitler/Nazis as a sort
of catch-all for evil, and wondering (as per Godwin) why that kind of speech
wasn't just hateful enough to end the conversation then and there . .

But the thing about Eichmann was that he *wasn't* the devil incarnate.
Check out Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" sometime for a portrait of
the man.  Arendt was, in her own words, a Zionist and no liberal (in today's
parlance, she would probably be called "right-wing"!).  And her depiction of
Eichmann is as a pompous little moron -- NOT of a figure of evil.  The whole
point about invoking Eichmann (as opposed to, say, Hitler) is that plenty of
people can be running the machines of evil without being anything worse,
themselves, than stupid and unimaginative.  As we saw in "Intersections in
Real Time" . . .

Certainly we could debate the analogy either way.  But the point is, it's a
more specific, less slanderous analogy than mere "you're a Nazi!" type
left/right wing flaming.  And, as such, maybe it's worth a reasoned
rebuttal.

Jenn





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Wesley Struebing <strueb at carpedementem.org>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 23:22:06 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 48

On Wed, 17 May 2006 06:06:18 +0000 (UTC), "Raven Woman"
<HrafnWif at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Personally, I see no greater good in exposing students to
>> >> hate-speech, which would be one's primary reason for booking Ward
>> > Churchill
>> >> specifically, yet he had a full dance card.
>
>The thing about hate speech & the "little Eichmann" reference . . .
>
>We're sort of taking it as if Churchill was invoking Hitler/Nazis as a sort
>of catch-all for evil, and wondering (as per Godwin) why that kind of speech
>wasn't just hateful enough to end the conversation then and there . .
>
>But the thing about Eichmann was that he *wasn't* the devil incarnate.
>Check out Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" sometime for a portrait of
>the man.  Arendt was, in her own words, a Zionist and no liberal (in today's
>parlance, she would probably be called "right-wing"!).  And her depiction of
>Eichmann is as a pompous little moron -- NOT of a figure of evil.  The whole
>point about invoking Eichmann (as opposed to, say, Hitler) is that plenty of
>people can be running the machines of evil without being anything worse,
>themselves, than stupid and unimaginative.  As we saw in "Intersections in
>Real Time" . . .
>
I doubt that Churchill knew that.  Churchill was looking for a rise
out of people - pure and simple.  And he got it.

Oh, btw,  the professor has been ruled on (quite well, it seems) by
the University.  The least harsh penalty recommended for him is a
two-year suspension without pay.  In better than 120 pages, the
panel's report delineates his intellectual misconduct.  And the man
still has the balls to say, in effect, "They ain't got nothing on me."
>Certainly we could debate the analogy either way.  But the point is, it's a
>more specific, less slanderous analogy than mere "you're a Nazi!" type
>left/right wing flaming.  And, as such, maybe it's worth a reasoned
>rebuttal.
>
Could be - but I doubt it.

--

Wes Struebing

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 21:06:42 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 8

"Atheists: America's most distrusted minority"

Well, I can't believe that....

jms